Committee on Technical Processing (CTP)
Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL)

2003 Annual Meeting

Wednesday, March 26, 2003
3:10 p.m.-5:15 p.m.
Beekman Parlor, New York Hilton Hotel
New York, NY


AGENDA

  1. Welcome; Introduction of Committee Members (Hideyuki Morimoto)
  2. Cataloging of Electronic Resources, including Internet Resources: Dublin Core and Other Metadata Schemes, Management, etc. (Prof. Kwong Bor Ng, Queens College, New York, NY)
  3. AACR2, 2002 revision, Chapter 12: New Aspects (Mr. Everett Allgood, New York University)
  4. Update: CJK-Related Cataloging at LC (Mr. Kio Kanda, Library of Congress)
  5. Questions and Answers; Discussion (Hideyuki Morimoto)

MINUTES

I. Welcome; Introduction of Committee Members (Hideyuki Morimoto)

The 2003 annual meeting of the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) Committee on Technical Processing (CTP) was called to order at 3:10 pm at Beekman Parlor, New York Hilton Hotel in New York City. The Chair, Mr. Hideyuki Morimoto welcomed participants to the meeting and the names of the current CTP members, 2002-2005, were reiterated. Mr. Morimoto introduced outline of the session program, consisting of three presentations and Committee report, including cataloging questions received and general remarks.


II. Cataloging of Electronic Resources, including Internet Resources: Dublin Core and Other Metadata Schemes, Management, etc. (Prof. Kwong Bor Ng, Queens College, New York, NY)

The first presentation entitled "Cataloging of Electronic Resources: Dublin Core and other Metadata Schemes" was given by Professor Kwong Bor Ng of the Graduate School of Library and Information Studies, Queens College, New York City. Prof. Ng introduced the audience to two approaches to the metadata schemes: AACR approach and Metadata approach. In conjunction with the first approach, Prof. Ng explained the significant development on implementing the revised AACR2 chapter 9 for cataloging electronic resources. The details of two types of integrated resources, finite and continuing, are described in AACR2, Chapter 12.

With respect to Metadata approach, Prof. Ng first defined metadata in our library world as machine understandable structured data (intrinsic and extrinsic) describing various attributes of an information object for the purposes of bibliographic control and use management.  For example, VRA (the Visual Resources Association) core categories, Dublin Core, and Encoded Archival Description (EAD) are all data about data in our library world.

Participants were introduced to an example of VRA core record with datasets describing a slide of a work of art in a museum (from http://www.vraweb.org/vracore3.htm):

Record Type = work
Type = sculpture
Title = Standing Buddha
Measurements.Dimensions = 64.5 cm
Material.Medium = bronze
Date.Creation = 5th cent.
Location.Current Repository = New Delhi (IND), National Museum of India
Location.Former Site = Phophnar (IND)
Style/Period.Dynasty = Vakataka dynasty
Style/Period = Gupta
Culture = Indian
Subject = Buddha

With an example of Dublin Core record for U.S. Copyright Office home page, Prof. Ng explained that there are four levels of understanding Dublin Core:

  • Simple Dublin Core as shown in the example and its alternative;
  • Dublin Core in HTML, and Dublin Core in SML without DTD (Document Type Definition);
  • Dublin Core in SML with its own Namespace and DTD; and
  • Dublin Core in SML with Schemata, in RDF (Resource Description Framework) format.

In pursuit of a standard the Dublin Core Metadata workshop series began in 1995, with an invitational workshop that brought together librarians, digital library researchers, content experts, and text-markup experts to promote better discovery standards for electronic resources. The workshop was organized by OCLC and the National Center for Supercomputer Association (NCSA) to address the problem of providing metadata for network-accessible materials. The Dublin Core is a fifteen-element set of descriptors that has emerged from this effort in interdisciplinary and international consensus building. The goals of the Dublin Core are summarized as follows:

  • Simplicity of creation and maintenance
  • Commonly understood semantics
  • Conformance to existing and emerging standards
  • International scope and applicability
  • Extensibility
  • Interoperability among collections and indexing systems.

The15 metadata elements are of three types: metadata about content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, coverage), metadata about intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor, rights) and metadata about instantiation (date, format, identifier, language). The official documents for details of metadata elements are available at: http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.

Prof. Ng introduced the participants to broad classes of qualifiers for Dublin Core: (1) Element Refinement: qualifiers making the meaning of an element narrower or more specific (a refined element shares the meaning of the unqualified element, but with a more restricted scope); and (2) Encoding Scheme: qualifiers identifying schemes that aid in the interpretation of an element value, including controlled vocabularies and format notations or parsing rules. For each of the eleven  metadata elements that cover content and intellectual property, the Dublin Core Initiative recommends qualifiers for refinements and encoding schemes. Prof. Ng explained the details of such recommendations to the participants with the same example introduced earlier for U.S. copyright Office home page. The same record is introduced in XTML format for the participants, with an additional example of local qualifier for meta name that includes Chinese script.

With respect to an example XML document, Prof. Ng noted that bibliographic records are not amenable to this format. Prof. Ng illustrated how Document Type Definition (DTD) defines what tags can go in your document, what tags can contain other tags, the number and sequence of the tags, the attributes your tags can have, and optionally, the values those attributes can have. He concluded his presentation with an invitation to visit his teaching website: http://purl.oclc.org/net/teaching/729.html.

The site gives 90 examples of Dublin Core in SML with DTD and technical details.

In response to questions by a participant on the future of MARC records, Prof. Ng stated that MARC would stay for the time being. Prof. Ng also restated that we need an 'in-between layer' such as cascaded style sheet (CSS) to display SML document properly through ordinary browser.


III. AACR2, 2002 revision, Chapter 12: New Aspects (Mr. Everett Allgood, New York University)

The Chair introduced the second presenter, Mr. Everett Allgood, serials cataloger of the New York University. His presentation was entitled "AACR2, 2002 revision, Chapter 12: New Aspects". Focusing on changes to AACR2 that accommodate seriality, he began his presentation with a brief overview and status report as of March 2003, followed by details on: (1) the new framework and how the concepts of continuing resource, serial and integrating resource (IR) are used; (2) the concept of major and minor changes and the new minor title change provisions; and (3) additional available resources for study and review.

Mr. Allwood mentioned that many electronic and some print resources (loose-leafs) which were previously cataloged as monographs are now grouped into a category called integrating resource (IR). IRs are closely related to serials because they exhibit a high degree of seriality. Because serials and IRs have so much in common, the two are now joined together in a revised Chapter 12 entitled "Continuing Resources".

The primary difference between monographs and continuing resources is the fact that monographs are finite (i.e., they have predetermined conclusion). It should be noted that multi-parts are still cataloged as monographs even though they may be issued over time. The primary difference between an integrating resource and a serial is the form in which it is issued. In terms of basis of description and change conventions in cataloging, serials and integrated resources differ as follows: Serials are described based on the first or earliest available issue with successive entry (i.e. a new record each time there is a major change). IRs are described based on the latest iteration, and the same record is used and updated for many changes (i.e., integrating entry).

Mr. Allwood gave the new definition of continuing resources as an umbrella concept used to group serials and IRs: a bibliographic resource that has no predetermined conclusion. IR is defined as a bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole. An IR may be finite or continuing. Examples of IRs are: CONSER Web site, OCLC WorldCat (database), CONSER Cataloging Manual (loose-leaf), AACR2 (loose-leaf), PCC Web site, and Al Gore 2000 campaign Website (finite Website). The definition of serial is revised as a continuing resource that is issued in a succession of discrete parts usually bearing numbering that has no predetermined conclusion. Examples include: journals, electronic journals, newsletters, annual reports, newspapers, monographic series and updating directories. Mr. Allwood directed participants to AACR2 Rule 12.0A (new) that covers the following finite materials: publications of limited duration (i.e. resources that bear the characteristics of serials, such as frequency and numbering, but are finite in scope, reprints of serials and finite integrating resources. As of Dec. 1, 2002, serials are continued to be cataloged pretty much as they have been, while IRs are cataloged according to the rules in chapter 12. IRs are coded as Bib Level 'm' (monograph), with a serial 006 added to the record containing new codes (e.g., types of continuing resource). These were interim measures until Bib Level 'i' (integrating resources) is implemented by OCLC and RLIN sometime after July 2003. Once Bib Level 'i' is available, integrating resources and serials will both use the same 008, renamed: Continuing Resources, and records for integrating resources created by PCC libraries may be authenticated and distributed with the CONSER database.

Mr. Allwood summarized the significance of recent changes as follows: a greater recognition that many resources are not monographs and require additional control; a new conceptual framework for thinking about how we organize our work in libraries (i.e. monograph/serial dichotomy doesn't work any more!); the concept of Continuing Resource is likely to have added significance as more resources become more dynamic; and both CONSER and BIBCO will catalog integrated resources.

In debunking some myths, Mr. Allwood states that serials still exist and its definition has not changed radically, still cataloged according to successive entry with new records created as necessary. Integrated resources are not a type of serials, but are a type of continuing resources, that is, integrated resources and continuing resources are not equal.

In deciding how to catalog electronic resources, participants may consult LCRI 1.0, reissued fall 2002. Catalog the resource as a monograph if it is basically complete, but may have been corrected. Treat the resource as a serial or integrating resource if it is likely to be updated or added to over time. It should be noted that LCRI 1.0 assumes that direct access cannot be integrating. Therefore ongoing CD-ROMs are serials, even when cumulative (e.g., the parts remain discrete). For remote access electronic resources, treat it as serials if you can access the earlier issues or update and if it contains real numbering, not revision date. Treat resources as integrating if earlier issues or updates are inaccessible and no real numbering is available.

The second segment of presentation by Mr. Allwood focused on the major and minor changes for serials. The former requires the creation of a new bibliographic record. The major change includes: some title changes, changes of main entry (new body or change in name that would require a new heading), some uniform title qualifiers (corporate body, medium), physical medium, and edition statement (when change is significant - see LCRI 21.3B). The Minor change does not require the creation of a new record; changes may be noted in the record instead. This includes: some title changes, some changes to uniform title qualifiers (place, frequency, etc.), edition statement (when change is not significant), and numbering. The underlying principle is to make a new record only when there is a new work. Significant change of the contents, of the scope or audience, as well as an end-user's likely perception must be considered for this goal. Changes are more cosmetic if it concerns typographical, placement of words and slight variations in scope. Examples of major changes are: (1) main entry changes; (2) translated serials undergoes change in original title; (3) change in corporate body used as uniform title qualifier; (4) major changes in title proper (i.e., words are added, dropped, or changed anywhere in the title that change the meaning of the title or indicate a different subject matter). The two AACR2 rules, 21.2A1 and 21.2A2, give the definition of major and minor changes. Title changes considered minor are covered in 21.2.A2. Minor changes include nine provisions with many from LCRI. Mr. Allwood presented selected provisions, illustrating the difference between the new and old rules with examples from acronyms and initialisms (category a), corporate body names (category c), words in a list (category h), words indicating type of resource (category i), and other changes such as changes in numbering, dates of publications, and punctuation in 260 filed. Details follow.

Changes from Acronyms or Initialisms to full form or vice versa are now minor, while previously only abbreviations were considered as a change in representation.

Corporate body name: if same name is added or dropped anywhere in the title, or if the form in which the name is given changes (e.g., full to abbreviation) consider the change minor. Previously if name is added or dropped at end of title, the change was considered minor.

With respect to words in a list, Mr. Allwood suggest to consider the following: (1) LCRI stipulates that a list must include 3 or more terms; and (2) the change must be significant enough to be as given in AACR2 Rule 21.2A1. In other words, we need to examine if there is a significant change in subject matter in addition to the number of terms required to be a list.

With respect to words indicating type of resources, the addition or deletion anywhere in the title of such words are minor changes.

All changes in numbering are minor changes; even when numbering sequence repeats, no new record is made, reflecting harmonization with ISSN.

In case of doubt, consider the change to be minor change.

With respect to dates of publication for serials, integrating resources and multi-part (1.4F8), catalogers do not give the beginning or ending date if the first and/or last published issue, iteration, or part is not in hand. While LC will not follow optional provision of supplying the date, NLC will. CONSER may use the provision when date is known in order to keep descriptive practices for serials and IR in synch.

In variable field 260, the ending comma is no longer used when no subfield 'c' is present. Unclosed brackets are not to be used, even when subfield 'c' is incomplete.

To describe changes in title proper of IRs are described using MARC21 247 (former title) fields and 547 (former title complexity note) fields with 006/008 entry convention '2' ( Integrated entry). A separate 547 'The history' note in addition to the 247 field is given only if the situation requires more explanation than given in the 247 fields (LCRI ). In conjunction with IR changes in title proper and responsible body, MARC 21 550 (issuing body note) is required in addition to 247. Mr. Allwood provided participants with examples to illustrate changes in title proper and second change in responsible body for IRs.

Mr. Allwood concluded his presentation with helpful sources available for catalogers on IRs and all aspects of the changes.

Steve Miller's presentation to CONSER/BIBCO on the cataloging of IRs:


IV. Update: CJK-Related Cataloging at LC (Mr. Kio Kanda)

The Chair, Mr. Morimoto, introduced the third speaker, Mr. Kio Kanda, Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division, Library of Congress.  Mr. Kanda's presentation "Update: CJK related Cataloging at LC" covered the following:

  1. CJK calligraphy classification:
    The Library of Congress will cease classification of calligraphy in ND and use numbers in NK, eliminating the duplicate provision for calligraphy classification. Discontinued numbers in ND will be put in parentheses. The change will be incorporated at the beginning of the NK schedule to clarify that the subclass includes some art forms that are fine arts. Current NK schedule is captioned only for decorative arts. CPSO will place the proposal in more detailed form on the CPSO webpage for comments from the CEAL and other library communities.

  2. Asian Studies and LCSH:
    Mr. Kanda reviewed current LC practice for several subject headings related to Asian Studies using three bibliographic records as points of departure: Orientalism by Edward W. Said (1978), Deathly embrace by Sheng-mei Ma (2002), and Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West by Judith Snodgrass (2003). Subject headings discussed are:

    • Orientalism (BT Asia - Foreign public opinion, Western; East and West; Middle East - Foreign public opinion, Western);
    • Orientalists (UF Asian scholars; Asian studies specialists; Asianists; Middle Eastern studies specialists);
    • Art, Asian (UF Art, Oriental);
    • Arts, Asian (UF Asian arts);
    • Ethics, Oriental (Oriental ethics);
    • Oriental literature (UF Asian literature); *
    • Philosophy, Asian (UF Philosophy, Oriental)

    Mr. Kanda informed participants that LC is currently reviewing the subject heading, Oriental literature, for revision.  As an example of recent revision by LC, Mr. Kanda referred participants to another subject heading, "Asia - Study and teaching (UF Oriental studies; UF Orientalism)", revised to the current form in 2000 on original input in 1986.

  3. Other LC Developments among the recent authorized headings are:
    Falun Gong (Organization); Li, Hongzhi, 1951-; Falun gong exercises.

    Also established is a chronological subdivision, "21st century" to be used under headings for art and art forms of all nations, regions, and ethnic groups. The subdivision is also used under individual languages and groups of languages, groups of literary authors, individual literatures, including drama, and forms and types of musical compositions.

    With respect to historical periods two developments are noteworthy:

    • Economic history and conditions--By region or country--Asia--East Asia. Far East--Korea  Historical periods: HC467.6-HC467.95
    • Japanese language and literature: Individual authors and works--Heisei period, 1989-: PL867-PL878


V. Questions and Answers; Discussion (Hideyuki Morimoto)

Due to time constraints, the Chair forwent a report on Committee activities. The Chair presented two cataloging questions received to the Committee and gave answers in detail with examples:

  1. Question 1: Where can one find a table of Cutter numbers for translations of non-literary works?

    Answer: The table is in Subject cataloging manual. Shelflisting, G150 (Translations). Use this table only when a uniform title plus language(s) is provided and when the main entry is a personal author or title. Do not use the table for entries with a corporate or conference heading; or autobiographies/correspondence. If two languages are named in the uniform title, Cutter for the first language. If a language is not listed on the Translation, select a number for that language that would agree alphabetically with the table and any translations(s) previously shelflisted in the same class. If the number (1) was omitted from the number representing the translation (e.g., x for the original work, .x3 for an English translation, .x4 for French, etc.), continue this practice only when the pattern has already been established for that work. When the caption By language, A-Z appears in the classification schedules, do not apply the Translation Table. Instead, Cutter for the language itself.

  2. Question 2: I do not quite understand the recent change in practice for counting non-filing characters in MARC21. Please explain.

    Answer: MARC21 format for bibliographic data, 245, has changed its instruction for counting the number of initial non-filing characters, when diacritic or special character is associated with the first filing character. Any diacritic or special character associated with the first filing character is not included in the count of non- filing characters. Mr. Morimoto presented participants with English, French and German titles to illustrate the change.

The Chair's report concluded with the news that the University of Washington completed GAC addition project to affected Chinese political jurisdiction name authority records in Fields 043. For example, 043 'a-cc-yu' is added as a result of this project to authority record for: Yunnan Sheng (China). However, LCSH record for non-jurisdictional Chinese geographic names are beyond the scope of this project. For example, there is no field 043 for: Xi River (China).


The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by
Hisami Springer
University of Hawaii, Manoa

Annual Meeting
Agenda and Minutes

 Valid CSS!
Designed by the Committee on Library Technology chair Rob Britt , January 13, 2012
Modified by Dongyun Ni, last updated on Jan. 08, 2013